Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[W. K. Lis]

not really. in some parts, they can widen the south side of the road, in other parts, they can widen the north.

The bicycle path is on the side side of Eglinton Avenue West in Etobicoke. It would be better for the LRT trains to travel through the forests on the north side, more picturesque.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

The bicycle path is on the side side of Eglinton Avenue West in Etobicoke. It would be better for the LRT trains to travel through the forests on the north side, more picturesque.

i don't think it would effect the bike paths too much. there is room. if it had to go through the forests, that would be alot of mature trees to cut down.

 

[Panzerfaust]

Emmett (problematic, and TTC staffer admitted as much due to long walk up the hill and what would happen with 32D)

I noticed this a while ago, and I think I have a solution. With the Jane LRT, given ROW problems, it'll probably be underground south of that general area anyway. Alternatively, it will run down the rail corridor to Dundas West, thus having no LRT service on that area of Jane Street at all. I propose running a Jane surface bus from Jane Station up to Eglinton, looping along the 32D route. That way there will be local service on southern Jane street, then service along Emmett as well.

 

[nfitz]

Brentcliffe does seem rather odd given that it is underground and only 400 metres from Liard, and no one is going to be walking along Eglinton from anywhere further east.

Though if you do without Leslie - which isn't underground, you'd be 1.8 km from Brentcliffe to Don Mills - and 2.2 km from Liard to Don Mills. Besides, isn't there a potential for a GO station at Leslie and Eglinton, on the new Agincourt to Summerhill/Dupont line.

 

[ShonTron]

I noticed this a while ago, and I think I have a solution. With the Jane LRT, given ROW problems, it'll probably be underground south of that general area anyway. Alternatively, it will run down the rail corridor to Dundas West, thus having no LRT service on that area of Jane Street at all. I propose running a Jane surface bus from Jane Station up to Eglinton, looping along the 32D route. That way there will be local service on southern Jane street, then service along Emmett as well.

I was thinking myself a short extension of the 161 Rogers Road bus (reasonable frequencies, comes close via Alliance, Jane and Outlook), with one extra bus added to maintain current level of service.

 

[Dan416]

I plotted the proposed underground stops (Weston through Laird) on a Google map, and I plotted the current Bloor-Danforth stops on the same map. I find them to be very similar in spacing. i.e. I approve of the spacing, and think it would be fine spacing for subway. Therefore I move that the TTC built Weston through Laird (i.e. the underground portion) as full subway and run buses beyond Weston and beyond Laird. We can build the rest of the stops later. They're already building a subway-sized tunnel, might as well build the stations subway-sized and buy the rolling stock for them But even if they don't, I like the spacing, and as long as it is possible to convert it to subway, I'll be happy. I just don't like the idea of the same LRVs going through the underground portion and running through the streets. I just fear the streets will screw up the speed.

 

[adma]

In my books, Russell's far more dispensible than Lloyd Manor or even Mulham, which at least have multiple dwellings and/or retail close at hand.

Emmett; well, if they extend the apartment tower array t/w Eglinton, Crescent Town-style. Yeah, and impinge upon parkland, etc. Perhaps if urban planning worked the way it once did, pleasing the Dichotomys of the world.

Maybe there ought to be an architectural/urban-planning version of "Mad Men"...

 

[W. K. Lis]

In my books, Russell's far more dispensible than Lloyd Manor or even Mulham, which at least have multiple dwellings and/or retail close at hand.

Emmett; well, if they extend the apartment tower array t/w Eglinton, Crescent Town-style. Yeah, and impinge upon parkland, etc. Perhaps if urban planning worked the way it once did, pleasing the Dichotomys of the world.

Maybe there ought to be an architectural/urban-planning version of "Mad Men"...

Looking at a map of Eglinton Flats, if a stop at Emmett Avenue is made on the Eglinton LRT, a short cut would have to be built to go up the north hill and between the condo buildings. Possible, but wasn't Eglinton Flats also the one of the possible locations for storage yards?

 

[dowlingm]

If so, it would be nice to think that the yard could be decked over to preserve some of the playing space.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Display boards for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT are now available online at this link in PDF form.

 

[Whoaccio]

I don't get it, why doesn't the TTC use the old Expressway ROW for this? Here we are, with a perfectly good ROW sitting next to a busy transit corridor, putting LRT in the middle of a street. With a bit of creative under passing, the western section could be virtually RT standard, with only a few intersections at grade.

Is there a technical reason for this? After some consideration, I feel that the Eglinton Crosstown could quite easily be a slam dunk way for the TTC to showcase LRT. Sometimes they seem to be shooting themselves in the foot though.

Looking over these slides, I've also noticed that the TTC is intending to bore two tunnels. Why can't we just single tunnel this? Many other cities on earth manage to make due without double tunneling "light" rail transit for the love of god.

 

[CDL.TO]

I don't get it, why doesn't the TTC use the old Expressway ROW for this? Here we are, with a perfectly good ROW sitting next to a busy transit corridor, putting LRT in the middle of a street. With a bit of creative under passing, the western section could be virtually RT standard, with only a few intersections at grade.

Is there a technical reason for this? After some consideration, I feel that the Eglinton Crosstown could quit easily be a slam dunk way for the TTC to showcase LRT. Sometimes they seem to be shooting themselves in the foot though.

Because if we have a streetcar in the middle of the street, avenue-style development will sprout up beside the sidewalks. That's the theory, anyway. It's about "urbanizing the suburbs", not about moving people in speedy manner.

 

[Dan416]

I don't think they should use the old expressway ROW. I agree with the TTC that the subway/LRT should run along/under the street, where the riders are. I don't agree with the decision to use LRT, but they seem to be making the underground portion convertible to subway, so that's sufficient for now, even if a little optimistic that they'd ever do that.

But the underground stop spacing is good, and they're using two tunnels. So all is fine. If Metrolinx wants them to make the underground portion subway, then Metrolinx will be funding it, so, win-win?

 

[Panzerfaust]

I don't think they should use the old expressway ROW. I agree with the TTC that the subway/LRT should run along/under the street, where the riders are.

This argument might hold water on Finch, because the distance between Finch and the hydro corridor is pretty significant in some cases. However, on Eglinton West? Are you kidding me? The corridor is literally right next to the street. Would you say that the Bloor-Danforth line, being just north of the streets it's named after, isn't where the riders are? I'm all for putting LRT where it's convenient and well used, but nobody is going to go "Oh well, I have to cross the street to get to the LRT, looks like I'm driving instead."

 

[Whoaccio]

I don't think they should use the old expressway ROW. I agree with the TTC that the subway/LRT should run along/under the street, where the riders are. I don't agree with the decision to use LRT, but they seem to be making the underground portion convertible to subway, so that's sufficient for now, even if a little optimistic that they'd ever do that.

But the underground stop spacing is good, and they're using two tunnels. So all is fine. If Metrolinx wants them to make the underground portion subway, then Metrolinx will be funding it, so, win-win?

Are we both talking about the old Richview ROW?

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v...&scene=28295655&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1